hidden skill rating

=) Random Task (= · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 03:35 PM by =) Random Task (=.)

I think the beauty of the current system is its simplicity (except maybe for the fact that the hidden skill rating is not known directly).

(11-06-2013 09:28 AM).Memories. Wrote: I think it's mostly okay, but a few changes might help.

1. Matchmaking should match top players better.
2. The time limit for removing inactives should be shorter. Or should only be reset by playing in that particular league. I.e., if I make it to #20 1v1, but then only play 2v2 for a year, I shouldn't remain on the 1v1 list.

I like Memories suggestions as they seem to be gradual improvements. I would maybe add that the skill rating should be published.

Mag!cGuy · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 10:14 PM by Mag!cGuy.)

(11-06-2013 09:14 AM)DimebagDerek Wrote:
(11-06-2013 06:25 AM)Mag!cGuy Wrote: They disapear from the list if they don't play, so what is wrong for you? I don't understand. Why would their level decrease if they stop playing for a moment? Also, if someone is that good, he will rise in the ranks and kick the "inactive" ones out. If he isn't good enough, he doesn't reach the top, it's as simple as that. Thus if no one is good enough to be better than you, that means to be higher ranked than you, why should you have your rank decreased. You are ranked as the best if you are the best, it's the role of the others players to come steal your places. They just have to be good enough.

I'm not saying the top is right to be almost inactive, but it's not because it's called "ladder" that you have to kick the ones not playing. They're here because they deserve it, and if you don't want them to be the best anymore then come to be the best.

If I was in a top spot and didn't play, I would expect to no longer be there if I decided to come back later. And I could care less if they stay there or not from inactivity. Don't put words in my mouth like I want them booted to raise my own rating. I've said more than once that is not what they do anyways, it is just not fair to be able to keep the spot without playing (which is possible). Your haughty attitude is really off putting. If you don't understand what I mean or don't agree with it, don't try to make me sound like a punk.

?? Why so much hate? The "you" I used in my whole post was a general one and not a "you" directed to you. I never attacked you there so maybe you should try to understand more the posts before starting to do so and saying absolutely wrong things. Wink

So let's back in the right debate. Well Memories expressed exactly my thoughts Tongue

DimebagDerek · 11-06-2013, 11:39 PM

I want a system that encourages more high level play and competition. I don't care if it takes away their points, boosts them, drops them from the list, etc. I just want more incentive for the best players to want to be even better, and playing very few games against only a few people that the match system ranks them against is probably not going to do that. Anything competitive I can think of requires lots of devotion. People try very hard to get these spot, so normally champions have to work very hard to keep those rankings. And once they have them, people work very hard to take them away. It's what makes champions even better and stronger, to constantly play the best of an ever evolving field of competitors. The current system does not do this as well as it could, thankfully the top players don't abuse it. This is my feeling for all things competitive, not just Outwitters. I hope that was clear enough.

Thrutchy · (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 01:39 AM by Thrutchy.)

I think the system should have these changes:
* For each game type, drop players from the published top-200 list after a certain amount inactivity in league play for that game type. This should have no impact on hidden ranking.
* Gradually relax the matchmaking the longer a player waits for a game, but limit the relaxation. A top-10 ST should never be matched with anything less than another ST, I think.
* Don't allow players to game the system as P1. Right now, the highest ranked active player could easily play all P1 games on the maps they are best at with the race they want for each map. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but this should be fixed.

DimebagDerek · 11-07-2013, 03:27 AM

I agree that starting a match shouldn't guarantee you P1 if there is no one in the queue. While I don't know if many people abuse that tactic to get maps they want as P1, I am sure it happens. I suppose even if they randomized P1 or P2 on every new game, it still wouldn't stop someone from being able to get the map they want. Maybe they just need an option of having a new game initialized but stays in the queue until a second player joins THEN it randomized who starts on what map.

.Memories. · 11-07-2013, 03:29 AM

I admit to cancelling a Sweetie Planes game every once in awhile, but not always. That map is just not fun for me, win or lose..

TheGreatErenan · 11-07-2013, 03:31 AM

I've canceled games before, but not very much, and generally it's because I have had too many games on the same map in a row and I just want to play something different for a change.

Mag!cGuy · (This post was last modified: 11-07-2013 03:35 AM by Mag!cGuy.)

I happen to cancel games when I feel I launched too many of them and know I won't be able to play correctly if I play that many ladder games at once. So I cancel one or two, but it has nothing to do with the map. ^^

THIS IS MY 2000TH POST!!! JUBILEEEE!

Thrutchy · 11-07-2013, 03:39 AM

I wasn't suggesting any of the top ST's games the system like that, but it is a hole that should be plugged.

DimebagDerek · 11-07-2013, 03:53 AM

(11-07-2013 03:39 AM)Thrutchy Wrote: I wasn't suggesting any of the top ST's games the system like that, but it is a hole that should be plugged.

Exactly. Whether it is abused or not, there is the potential to do so, and someone is definitely going to do it. Some people will do anything for even the slightest edge.